Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
can burn off the inventory. clean energy fuels had them on last night. why focus on this? they have a clear growth path to build out stations. lloyd blankfein said in his editorial that key thing for growth in our country is energy. abundant energy. i thought we should look at clean energy that would benefit. markwest, this is a company that has a price above where they did secondary. look at the "wall street journal" word on the street. they say that maybe mlps have been oversold. if we're going to drill in this country for more energy, i like to think of halliburton down to 30. some people will say weatherford upgraded by a number of people and then let's not forget chesapeake. they came out this morning in a piece last night said we're more nat gas than i would like to be in ohio. when i spent time in ohio, 80% of what we put out on rigs is nat gas. you need the markwest pipeline to take natural gas to chesapeake to bring it to the east or to give it to clean energy fuels and in order to be able to drill oil, that's halliburton. that's the family of names that i'm focused on. >>
. but now we find out the department of energy gave the company another million the very same day it went belly up. what is up with this? some kind of consolation prize? cnbc's own eamon javers has more. good evening, eamon. >> good evening, larry. more information about the batterymaker a-123. it's a company that's been at the center of the fire storm over whether the government should provide grants and loans tone ji company. senator chuck grassley putting out new information stayed. grassley a republican in washington says saying that a123 received a grant from the federal government, the department of energy, on the same day that it filed for bankruptcy. grassley releasing this information in a letter from the company to the senator. we skpd the department of energy about this. here's what they said. they said the energy department takes its responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money very seriously. funds are only disbursed to a company for work already completed toward the ultimate goal of the department's grant. and larry, i should say that this was a grant for work
these expectations that we're going to see natural gas supplies really grow over the next several years. the energy information administration today saying that by 2017 or so, we will be an exporter of natural gas. this on top of what the international energy agency has said about natural gas and the fact we're continuing to grow here with our supplies. back to you. >> all right. thanks so much, sharon. of course, stocks not able to hold on to early gains today. the market is lower right now. look at this. this market is down about 3%, just over 3% since last week's presidential election. many believe it's mainly on worries about looming fiscal cliff. >> here to help us break down the trading day, mark freeman and bob posani. what do you think? do you think we get a resolution in the fiscal cliff that will please the market? everybody believes we're going to get something. will it please the market? >> i think that's a great point. to a certain degree, i'm wondering if we're too fixated on what the details will be as opposed to saying, look, do we get an agreement? when we look at it from the marke
to meet with the president, anything from walmart to duke energy to ursula burns of xerox and nine others. they will gather up, they will huddle up and exchange ideas to try to find a fix for the fiscal cliff. the question is, how much is the president willing to give on spending cuts, how much is the gop willing to perhaps give on tax increases and revenue enhancements, and what will the ceos say, ask and demand? eamon javers here also at the white house as we have full team coverage and he has got the ceo part of the story. >> brian, i think one of the key questions going into this ceo meeting as we wait their arrival on the north lawn of the white house is how do these ceos react to the more than $1 trillion figure now that's been floated by the white house for new tax revenues, is that something that they find dismaying, that they feel like they can't even start the negotiations with a number that big? remember that the negotiations last year between boehner and obama really focused on $800 billion figure. now the white house is floating a much larger number. how do those ceos react?
are an energy food. >> perfect for bloomberg to go on -- if it hasn't gone bankrupt, he would have tried to shut it down. >> jeremy, will you wear a rise a above -- you asked for one. >> yeah. i saw you rising and levitating. >> goolsbee wouldn't wear one because he was sure there was right wing conspiracy. are you ready to wear one. >> >> rise before has all sorts of con know takingnotations. >> but they're all good. >> yes. but i don't have a viagra pen. >> i asked goolsbee, what about be kind to animals. >> people see whatever they want. >> i will wear an i love hot dogs pin. >> it's a hint at compromise and that's what people don't like. >> in my mind, it doesn't hit a compromise. the president needs to compromise. that's how i see it. >> the republicans don't have to rise above? >> no, they've already put revenue on on the table. now let's compromise on on entitlements. you can lower marginal rights and raise effective rates, right? >> if the president didn't stand in the way, could you have a 1986 tax deal, take off preferences. you could lower tax rates which help the economy. everyone ca
petrol price and other energy price increases. but to a certain extent as well, the food price increases which we're beginning to see, and likely to see more of reflect changinged food presences, increasing prices for wheat even though spikes in corn and wheat prices that we've seen have been largely due to weather factors. but demands are the pressure, as well. >> for anyone trying to figure out what's going organization how sustainable are the inflation rates and are they not going to fall precipitously as the fee hikes come out. >> there will be, but if you look at the university tuition fees, that will be there for three years. it's not just something that will disappear in 12 months time. and that's an important point because when the bank of england presents it inflation forecast tomorrow, it will have to count those increases in fee as a medium term inflation pressure. they'll be there throughout the entirety of hair projections this time around. and then that has some effect on the policy making decisions. >> is that is t. for the 375, they're done? >> we suspect it probably is.
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6